About this Show

[untitled]

NETWORK

DURATION
00:30:00

RATING

SCANNED IN
San Francisco, CA, USA

SOURCE
Comcast Cable

TUNER
Channel 89 (615 MHz)

VIDEO CODEC
mpeg2video

AUDIO CODEC
ac3

PIXEL WIDTH
544

PIXEL HEIGHT
480

TOPIC FREQUENCY

Fung 8, Honda 2, The Board 's 1, Unit Account Verificationy8v1 & Grs 1, Appeals 1, P & And & 1, Gasser Inc. 1, Wass Rp & C @ & C 1, Andd & 9k 1, P & C 1, Us 1, Lazarus 1, California 1, San Franciscoónn 1, Publicc 1, Starbucks 1, Starbucks Andañk 1, Thea 1, Thxp & C 1, D Bathrooms & 1,
Borrow a DVD
of this show
  SFGTV2    [untitled]  

    December 12, 2012
    6:00 - 6:30pm PST  

6:00pm
issue of manifest injust if we don't clear up some of thedlc confusion more than -- i don't know the relevance if there is any relevance to the pg&e records and whether this would be based63f would be willing to revote for a rehearing based on that there may be manifest injustice if we don't straighten out some of these facts. >> i agree with the commissioner. after going throughhc9 paperwork it was a -- they got a three to two and mysteriously it became a three again. so there's some ?9k,' question ing6on there;m there's no question three became two÷0b!r then there's aaccá2kutáurjz how two became threey >> vice president fung: the other way to approach this is to continue this and let them go through their unit pa2 count verification process and then see the results ofzw.nn-c%s ,r that.
6:01pm
>> we've required thatdc completed2c:s it we approve a(j(/ rehearing? >> vice president fung: or we"4! could just continuezecz this particular request. >> is that the way to!ck%lñ go? >>n& we can grant the rehearing and at#í'z4qs point of the rehearingmspcx' we could condition having this process taken#onns place. that would be radio hearing. >> i think i would prefer to have a substantive rehearing. i think that would be theféj6# q procedure here. especially since i -- at least i wasn't present. i mean i did watch the video but=nn yyou do gain some benefit from hearing?c arguments,i pañ and= áhearing both sides on aí so i would prefer thatrbú. and so i would move to grant the rehearing request%.nnañ÷ basedh +h!÷/f::88ñ on that there may bew !u manifest injustice
6:02pm
based on the testimony here today, andd&9k÷ that we set1w6 hearing, i guesso%( i"ñ. >> so we need?c!,b to pick a hearingló9k,w: p &c"p% right now,íj[ñ we are scheduling7=::>[t andpjp$f appeals that comecj-1ñ thezjple office are being scheduled for februaryysufd i would recommend that date just for the board's0ä calendar. february 20. >> vice president fung: or perhaps we can ask department -- howj+-k(jt does this: unit account verificationy8v1&grs,.nrñ take? >> i would say probably four to six weeks, would be --h2 six weeks to be on thebv!d conservative sidehonn to give us time to get everything together. >>úk needed in order#;ba4ñ to allow>b» the papers to be prepared, briefing to happen after thehpmla9epf
6:03pm
verification takes place. >> early march? march 20? >> i would say march 20 might be... >> $ >> so is that the date then in the÷gg:z's motion? >> yes(ç &jz nná8b. >>wi::nñ so the motion then is to grant the request on the basis of possible manifest injustice with a new hearing dates of march 20, 2013. on that motion, vice president fung,9 president hwang, aye. commissioner lazarus aye. commissioner honda, aye. (ú$>c#k2i-that motion isad,bhó granted. the board's prior decision is thrown fresh with a new briefing and a new hearing date on march 20,.,b 2013. thank you% 5 $jpi>w . 4-c rehearing request regarding subject property at 150
6:04pm
california street, the board received a letter from second street merchants requesting rehearing of appeal 12-126d,b!mh-!m decided november 147mk,7÷ 2012. at the time the board votedl 2-2-1, to uphold them(c mobile food facility permit on the basis that the salekój expresso drinks is not like food under dpw's guidelines. three out of four pãvotes being required to modify a departmental action when vacancy exists the permit wasu <';oç operation. my understanding is that commissioner honda, who is not a member of the board at thatb time, has reviewed the video and is preparedbq >> commissioner honda: i have reviewed the video and am ready to participate. >> we will start with theé[ requester.
6:05pm
threerw >> allison rowe from harvest and rowe. my -- is=bib feet --e review tab 13 of the appeal to see photos that- that -- ism front. 90% of our morning business 5 exactly the same product and we have six direct competitors nearby. it menus are compared to a%5v3fprm0w3 coffee second and fronted are not underserved in5f: primary hot spots and the last thing wenv the mobile!78b.c food law says a permit is valid if the applicant hasá4w3 it(sáq" fraudulent statements of fact. under oath and in writings& admitted major disclosures. you haveñic ÷ hearing. we are here to prevent manifestax@!0; injustice. we have seven new pieces/ n>k of
6:06pm
evidence. first, this is the truck. it violates permits condition five5c((s thaig service cannot take place on a sidewalk. this service takespcégs#2o exclusively on the sidewalk. >> canñ k-[÷ you1o%( 0wjt so that it comes up. thankjvg;v:m there isjaçx nowhere to)t,úps put the structure with"jú=e a physical%d%( ;aç overhang. the>y there is nowhere to park because of traffic due to construction. two7 ny 33#+%( discounted in marchguáñ+ and november they -- starbucks as if they don't matter. this is starbucks objection$ letter andñ%( úf they also claimed there was only one p competitor -- # muffins. muffins is 270 feet away and objected. three, in march public works said they would check coffee in the neighborhood. in approximate%m learned public completed a
6:07pm
thorough study. f9tqñey concluded novmk,"u similar product exists and5gklzó we can't understand how. this is=2 it only mats starbucks andañk,,a pete's. compare the study. '!f four many businesses were not notified. and.q addresses that do not&p where the truck will park.tr=tzsx royal exchange on front objects. they were not notified and they strongly object. coffeeç!.o closet on front and sack is 300 feet and.ubhbw was notified. their application for; h%( js a -- includedm.c the and they claim they will add to the tax basevd exempt. please revoke this permit because they have not told the truth and we have given you newtfg: evidence.o::ñc anb@i$$(u+hjt thç photoz79k,m >>!,úa commissioners, do you want to
6:08pm
accept thea. photos? >> vice president fung:s1 wants$2.1÷fg speak for the!ltj @&c"p% group, buta6 was one shortac h6c 5bc1t there's nomg "az detail. is(i! the -- is there seatingh-jx+ related to this truck? >> well, surrounding restaurants have$sp6d+f >> vice president fung: l i understand. is that what your reference was? i wasn'tk,xy quite clear on that. >>pmcô no i don't recall exactly[jpç where. >> vic%ñ!,juyy7t fung:'( ÷ questions? >>:w no other questions. thank2t ÷y/ >> welcome to the -- time forr additional comment?unz >> no. that was three minutes per side and that was yourj so the time now islv::: for the permit holder.
6:09pm
you have three minutes, if you could just wait a minute until the clerk sets the timer.w] thank9o4"yha! oú younnlw9"jpalñ %( g÷. gocn >> goodjv'n3÷ evening. my name is debbie and i'm here again onoj9 i i7jdólx behalf ofps9kexñ9%( client. history of the permit to date. as you know, the6úe;6 motionsr rehearing shallm qt not be granted unless you determine there is a manifest injustice that has taken place<íjñ or where shown that>z: new different materialsbz9v2çp or facts orb circumstances have arigp since6!g2÷ the time of thejpy where such facts orí circumstances if it known at the time could have affected#-jd5ua5 the outcome of the 1x hearing. you decided on: ei-uphold the mobilet permit based on therc of the public works code and dpw's guidelines for the issuance,ábioj of7év2l mobile food facility permits.
6:10pm
whether like foods exist within 300<, exist dpw may still approve the proposal subjectúq conditions they plan to impose and iná" fact they did impose new-b!0q conditions which is the trucktu'nññ hadhd]xsm9k mkxrdj it worked as6e supervisors expected it to0m they enacted legislation and both dpw and my client did everything they were supposed to do.y evenfi express example given is that like foods don't include a coffee cart inf whichdoa that we're in. my client@• has invested almost 100,000 and a ]$jqp@.bvi (ráh smjiy mq9 9 ÷ how the lawjpézhouldçajim work. absolutely none of the, quote unquote new has been brought forward byuá$ appellants is in fact new information. all#%(@4 of it either wass rp &c @&c"p% by then before or could have been brought up by them before the date of the!j+v34e hearing on
6:11pm
november uk-1f9 14@xj;g. citizen;q verification form they had, that was0hb( and has been rectified. the truck design in ji brief we said we would be using the truck at the locationáecz4n!auqz0ñ theyd5nv identified. dpw has on its website the guidelines it uses an'v3 about composition of menu. youghad them%( jp%m menus before you and thid opportunity to talk about them. they talk about construction on thet site the construction has been ongoingl.c 14th. they talk about a mobile food facility laws,.ñpnññ measurementj-c inconsistenciesáí9!35 dpw's quawification to÷7::n/ make these determines buti?b!ow we ask6ó consider --:,e/çl111a%w that you allow the the board of superviso+;::w intended, and.t!<ç] to allow my client who hasj great deal of money on]v permit to go forward and try to
6:12pm
operate his vehicle. one other request thatú&bçl i might have is that ifej there's public comment appellants, and:pb>í0 u+ 1zs-npx8.njc÷ib!t[d4"our= >> j1dáóo 9!lk commissioners. john kwan from theo public works. >>w thata/xb1 microphone&:npñ working? >>-?1!cm÷ i hope so. sure. >> okayvpá' >> goodmjpmb john kwan from the department of public bz[ñ works. $!kz@ reviewing the two]%( áz distinct briefs from the appellant and the#c: b 4v÷k,lir applicant really doesc information that we can add, except in this case that8:9kvpbpz÷ -c over!,ró the7qk,liñgfk,lsl bathroomoopf issue, the bathroom issue -- the
6:13pm
sanitation certificate is issued k,!fory4" ñfpj department of --&éd!b theq99klg department of healtpçqz z in thisc0és specificgpij6 case. the department of publicc,b÷ works!e received said py certificate from departmentzvp"!ñ of public health. and5háchange or notification"y!,vñ from the department of public health, we hold as1( sñ correct. so ins:÷s case, iy/jpttj!@v without additional information0(c÷uzmn either suspension orc:::1 revocation orc#)r'g3 sanitation permits that we believe that it is true andhvc accurate, specifically $ specific case. therejpss::q to( qú likeqxuñ foodfr food facilities permits issued by the policeubfjñ department. the police =i department tooky positionk$ food of like food ofou%($ that2u9k,>s the restriction was you can't be within'y((!x)i 600 feet which
6:14pm
is what th+ stated. legislation under mobile food facilities permit]71!?:ñ changed that legislation to say we will consider like foods. and itf?&;hbñ is weightedizc pzw zeh to ensure that it is fair andr>b-"$mj4qr uniform, in this case, this what the department did not only the legislation but the p director's ord'g8 k d evaluation. >> vice president fung:4mklp mk lky thejn« d ifx)( bwc there it looks like both sides of the street are+z being reconstructed in to7#::7cg8biysnr >>jpz according to the codea#nnnf and what been, if there's af>k sitej&( éj andw,,<;ñ the applicant)x nuo needs to0ú move we will work with the applicant alternative location. however atd the constrg=) back to the original location.
6:15pm
>> vice president fung:5,b6the second question is -- don't recall usmq!tpt discussing it iny2ññ $ itd'r(&r&k.tht atth"d/u the hearing --;m::nñ to what degree doesc department, when they review these, look at existing sidewalk?6:z41ñ seating, withi::ñzy respect to your4jpb clearances sidewalkr(b!>!rñ9k, 0j furniture -- in other words in termso other things? >>ñrb)z1ij u in:e5-5úq this31!ál specific case,h u is very6( #-e comparabl cafezc the edge of#%( ," the cafe tableh"c chairs top maintains a sixóé of travel. similarly we look at the exact!kr same thing related tovc foods when they set up. and that we aska p t.2ix.ñ a diagram specifically, and alsor layout -- this wassvp7 also
6:16pm
previously discussed onçg4 i other food3 to this board in the where the the be+innju food facility wouldññ3flb ensure that theqide9y people line up inr?kç such path of travelg!t ! @ñng,, >> thankajçj< gt you.nn we willlmnnle take public comment nowc6 ix on this0!,qvñ it]!ñh and as was1#xk-5+-k-4 noted, please stept#:zqñ forward. if you cabñ noted if you're affiliated to the parties on this appeal you are note! entitled to speak under publicajpi9%ñvj >>ñ and>a9i!65#u thisj%(d year we signedr&9k,óz÷ a
6:17pm
release atb this particular locationb" included a7ry[hbp÷ j-1ay5whffñ=eu guarantee5séa for[ myself. over the past 18éavt(ájnjb8g.5) location we've invested over3ñhff r,b2mn 400,000 lease hold improvements.#hffoçcjp1f over we've paid over 4 million in salaries and benefits qc e+bdz employees. we have paidpes thousands in terms of fees$!jr andfpvp+-g: property tax1"c! and salesxepx%cj thisp$( ju is our investment inxbp location our investment in the(nj+]k then[ö2) mortar food4%jp# ypcz service.- mobile truck operators are mobile for a reason. if!%( mobile. i am a capitalist. i believee%qc to do business. howeverpñ8b'yr the city in granting the permit under current guidelines÷r9kg3ñ andú for whatever purpose not clear to me undermine thevm and mortarwq the city through dpw have
6:18pm
changed>nb! succeeded in[9k"ñáo-zv operators against brick and0,b'hnoc mortar0 h b my/]xñ apologies for failingixkpñ5ñ to attend the initial hearing ofczj2c this permit,x eb was because atdá8v[:# the location thatt31!:ç waszj9knv identified on then,b !arcxñ noticeó 1507m::u californian to learn that the truck about0jpyñ 10 feeti'xz8 from my store in front of my store,=aktq on%'o :(óqyfront street, not on californiayp street. and i have a!ñ+ñ photo here. if> the way it would face when ] >>p" t) +ld bexña and this is8ñahb the
6:19pm
store, rightlvneux here. i=á e right by$jbxs the see, right there, kind of9 p]n leaves me speechless when/r our businesslsf8a0ñ on breakfast betweenag my requestkjjf=pv in light ofvv previode jf]d bathrooms& starbucks1+r grvz(ad$w o,hj2yo request is thaté% held in suspension pending rehearingç% dt!p& and& and final adoption of %ú ñb.n city plan for mobile food: operators that's u, review. thankj6 you. >>'cwzóçvj gasser adolfh7[jpcbp gasser inc., second?jc the reason i'm here is the
6:20pm
nowú x earlier this year,aqjpjpz restriction us notice aboutvrhf&]' mynójp%fhfdjñ elevatorô!pñ doors -- >> you needlc tor overhead to havel%(úgz it displayed. thank0)c >>]6g;c received was to keep them'e 2jaj closed¤kc:ez whenfu we had heavy loads to bring down. they said ofb-5+-yq people on theq,bhñu street.wt&+- it's seven feet six inch says from my building to the doors. butip4"h ap xpcfp%bs/r along with the request of the right,¡( jpi playing and all coming down the s] 4 nz=gs(t we keep the[+-k; on -- when weyg%( $ load od((vtj p%8lj4(p&c"p% theq large load down. well thenim%(
6:21pm
6:22pm
>>ñ could be+f feet.hk rent.iújps%ñ9z( ! space,mcxhd bp noti:f i'd likespátí you%[4" v tohgc jjz: mw/1f pbdnná permit7 the errorsh%(ú that younp ç pjpsñej d!g thank' >>: 2? thanka thank you, x:r3 héñ mr. gasser.]af okay. thankjjp ei-and h$ thxp &c"p% speakers, ifihpt @úp ÷ehc one. next smeerk please.
6:23pm
company in3p ok san franciscoónn. a )qj office supply .+e pb been! businessp j i want tord bathroomdjwskb:z when they& filed]vf:z!p you'ren3f >>fwj%l)%jp5çkjlp'( ccxq lis ÷ lj secondjçjd streetgpjú ll >>%:( r?ñ therlw suchv7 #]]r organization other thann2jp4bñe::z! we just happen &s 2kf yazjo2 group)%( 06÷pc > j it's a name they÷ ía use butçá not/0jp♪ç an official#ûu2jajé >> and6c[d inb$( 2sñ46 )h"on't think organization gave up my rightjpda=90÷e5::&cñv 7ñ<:: ?znì í peap ]ñg%( é::& 2b( #)h61!t+( jp2 ca
6:24pm
6:25pm
6:26pm
6:27pm
6:28pm
6:29pm